You could replace "throw the first three dice and figure your sum"
with "pick any integer". :)

On 4/5/2013 10:28 AM, Chris Caldwell wrote:
>
> But why would a middle school child recognize that? Surely they did
> not want a long calculation. (One of my colleagues said generating
> functions give you the answer very quickly--definitely not a middle
> school solution!)

Most wouldn't recognize it. I'd like to think I would have recognized
it at that age, but I can't be sure. In seventh grade, I scored a 105
out of 150 on the contest that is now called the AMC-12, which was a
pretty decent score. If you believe what you read online, Noam Elkies,
who is three months younger than me, scored a 112 on that test, and then
he proceeded to beat my math competition scores routinely over the next
three years.

All of which is to say... a decent math competition should have some
problems which are well beyond the capabilities of the average
competitor. In ninth grade, I think I was a national co-champion of
the Continental Math League competition, because I didn't get a single
question wrong all year. It wasn't a particularly satisfying result.
That league was fairly new at the time, and I hope they learned that
you need to put some "stretch" questions in with the routine ones.

Chris Caldwell

I also enjoyed that test (the ACM-12) as a child, but of course that test is for students 4 years older than this test for Tennessee youth (only) is. Also

Message 3 of 16
, Apr 5, 2013

0 Attachment

I also enjoyed that test (the ACM-12) as a child, but of course that test is for students 4 years older than this test for Tennessee youth (only) is. Also this test is supposed to be limited to the state standards, so should not be the level of the ACM-8 either . But you are right in that they are designed to not allow the dreaded perfect scores (or even tied high values).

You could replace "throw the first three dice and figure your sum"
with "pick any integer". :)

On 4/5/2013 10:28 AM, Chris Caldwell wrote:
>
> But why would a middle school child recognize that? Surely they did > not want a long calculation. (One of my colleagues said generating > functions give you the answer very quickly--definitely not a middle > school solution!)

Most wouldn't recognize it. I'd like to think I would have recognized it at that age, but I can't be sure. In seventh grade, I scored a 105 out of 150 on the contest that is now called the AMC-12, which was a pretty decent score. If you believe what you read online, Noam Elkies, who is three months younger than me, scored a 112 on that test, and then he proceeded to beat my math competition scores routinely over the next three years.

All of which is to say... a decent math competition should have some problems which are well beyond the capabilities of the average competitor. In ninth grade, I think I was a national co-champion of the Continental Math League competition, because I didn't get a single question wrong all year. It wasn't a particularly satisfying result.
That league was fairly new at the time, and I hope they learned that you need to put some "stretch" questions in with the routine ones.

Jack Brennen

The math required to understand the easy solution to the dice problem is easily within the realm of 8th grade mathematics. The insight required to come up

Message 4 of 16
, Apr 5, 2013

0 Attachment

The math required to understand the "easy" solution to the dice problem
is easily within the realm of 8th grade mathematics.

The insight required to come up with the easy solution, while under time
pressure... That's another issue entirely. To get to the insight
requires recognizing that for 4 dice (and for 4 dice only!), you can
replace "prime" with "coprime with 6". Transforming a problem into
an equivalent easier problem -- that's something that is really hard
to master. (And almost certainly something that most 8th graders have
not been taught in school.)

On 4/5/2013 12:52 PM, Chris Caldwell wrote:
> I also enjoyed that test (the ACM-12) as a child, but of course that
> test is for students 4 years older than this test for Tennessee youth
> (only) is. Also this test is supposed to be limited to the state
> standards, so should not be the level of the ACM-8 either . But you
> are right in that they are designed to not allow the dreaded perfect
> scores (or even tied high values).
>

John

... Not all that dumb in my book. In fact, it is the most logical. Just work out the number of permutations for n=5,7,11,13,17,19,23 and add them up, and

>
>
>
> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
> Chris Caldwell <caldwell@> wrote:
>
> > if you roll four standard 6-sided dice and add up the resulting values,
> > what is the probability of rolling prime number?
>
> Help! I did this a dumb way, but got a simple answer:
> (4+20+104+140+104+56+4)/6^4 = 1/3
> Is there a smarter way, please?
>
> David
>

Not all that dumb in my book. In fact, it is the most logical. Just work out the number of permutations for n=5,7,11,13,17,19,23 and add them up, and divide by 1296.

Jack Brennen

Show the values that you can have after rolling the first 3 dice, and then for each of those values, show how many primes can be reached with the last die:

Message 6 of 16
, Apr 15, 2013

0 Attachment

Show the values that you can have after rolling the first 3 dice, and
then for each of those values, show how many primes can be reached with
the last die:

First three == 3: 2 primes (5 and 7)
First three == 4: 2 primes (5 and 7)
First three == 5: 2 primes (7 and 11)
First three == 6: 2 primes (7 and 11)
First three == 7: 2 primes (11 and 13)
First three == 8: 2 primes (11 and 13)
First three == 9: 2 primes (11 and 13)
First three == 10: 2 primes (11 and 13)
First three == 11: 2 primes (13 and 17)
First three == 12: 2 primes (13 and 17)
First three == 13: 2 primes (17 and 19)
First three == 14: 2 primes (17 and 19)
First three == 15: 2 primes (17 and 19)
First three == 16: 2 primes (17 and 19)
First three == 17: 2 primes (19 and 23)
First three == 18: 2 primes (19 and 23)

The rest is left as an exercise for the reader in use of the
distributive property.

On 4/15/2013 9:30 AM, John wrote:
>
>
> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "djbroadhurst" <d.broadhurst@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
>> Chris Caldwell <caldwell@> wrote:
>>
>>> if you roll four standard 6-sided dice and add up the resulting values,
>>> what is the probability of rolling prime number?
>>
>> Help! I did this a dumb way, but got a simple answer:
>> (4+20+104+140+104+56+4)/6^4 = 1/3
>> Is there a smarter way, please?
>>
>> David
>>
>
> Not all that dumb in my book. In fact, it is the most logical. Just work out the number of permutations for n=5,7,11,13,17,19,23 and add them up, and divide by 1296.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Unsubscribe by an email to: primenumbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> The Prime Pages : http://primes.utm.edu/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

woodhodgson@xtra.co.nz

... values, ... work out the number of permutations for n=5,7,11,13,17,19,23 and add them up, and divide by 1296. ... It seems to me there is a very short

> > > what is the probability of rolling prime number?
> >
> > Help! I did this a dumb way, but got a simple answer:
> > (4+20+104+140+104+56+4)/6^4 = 1/3
> > Is there a smarter way, please?
> >
> > David
> >
>
> Not all that dumb in my book. In fact, it is the most logical. Just

work out the number of permutations for n=5,7,11,13,17,19,23 and add
them up, and divide by 1296.

>

It seems to me there is a very short proof available. The prime numbers
in the range (4,24) are precisely those equivalent to 1 or 5, modulo 6.

Now it can very easily be shown by mathematical induction (**) that the
6^N values (modulo 6) obtained by adding N numbers selected "one from
each" of N copies of the 6-moduli {0,1,2,3,4,5} are represented the same
number of times {i.e. 6^(N-1) times}.

It then follows trivially that the required probability is 2/6 = 1/3.

I have only run this "through my head", but it seems correct to me.

(**) I suspect it is a trivial consequence of some algebraic or
number-theoretic theorem.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

woodhodgson@xtra.co.nz

... I have worded part of that clumsily and possibly misleadingly: it should read ... the set of 6^N results (modulo 6) obtained by adding N numbers

>
>
>
> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "djbroadhurst" d.broadhurst@
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com,
> > > Chris Caldwell wrote:
> > >
> > > > if you roll four standard 6-sided dice and add up the resulting
> values,
> > > > what is the probability of rolling prime number?
> > >
> > > Help! I did this a dumb way, but got a simple answer:
> > > (4+20+104+140+104+56+4)/6^4 = 1/3
> > > Is there a smarter way, please?
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> >
> > Not all that dumb in my book. In fact, it is the most logical. Just
> work out the number of permutations for n=5,7,11,13,17,19,23 and add
> them up, and divide by 1296.
> >
>
> It seems to me there is a very short proof available. The prime numbers
> in the range (4,24) are precisely those equivalent to 1 or 5, modulo 6.
>
> Now it can very easily be shown by mathematical induction (**) that the
> 6^N values (modulo 6) obtained by adding N numbers selected "one from
> each" of N copies of the 6-moduli {0,1,2,3,4,5} are represented the same
> number of times {i.e. 6^(N-1) times}.
>
> It then follows trivially that the required probability is 2/6 = 1/3.
>
> I have only run this "through my head", but it seems correct to me.
>
>
> (**) I suspect it is a trivial consequence of some algebraic or
> number-theoretic theorem.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I have worded part of that clumsily and possibly misleadingly: it should read " ... the set of 6^N results (modulo 6) obtained by adding N numbers selected "one from each" of N copies of the 6-moduli {0,1,2,3,4,5} contains each of the values 0,1,2,3,4,5 the same number of times {i.e. 6^(N-1) times}."